Separation of church and state...unless it's Sharia law.

[Craig234]

Maybe CanOWorms wants primitive values to dominate the West and the entire world. I've always thought he was motivated by hatred of white Americans and Europeans but perhaps his underlying motivation is actually love of barbarism.

The only one pushing irrationality and backwardsness here is you. You don't understand the issues, and this leads you to post insanely simplistic, ignorant 'theories' like the above.

 

[Craig234]

I am under the impression that intent is only relevant when someone didn't intend on committing the crime. The definition of rape is pretty simple, sex without consent, so unless the argument was he thought she consented when she really did not consent to the sex I can't imagine why intent would be relevant. Furthermore, I have been taught (the hard way once) that ignorance of the law is not an excuse nor will it get you out of the consequences. Obviously there is some leeway there but I think we can all agree that the "line" should be drawn WAY THE FUCK BEFORE you get to rape .

Again, why the hell do we need a law that says the current rape laws also apply to XYZ group? Rape? Seriously?

I bet a years pay that if I joined a religion that believed paying taxes was a mortal sin that they wouldn't need a new law to throw my ass in jail because its already freaking illegal.

Intent varies as an element of the crime, depending on the law.

Let me try to say something that some people are missing.

If a judge does something for reason A, and people say it was for reason B, and the judge was wrong for reason C, I can point out the error of those who say it was reason B without defending that he was right about reason A. But so many people think that pointing out the claim he did it for reasons B is wrong, by saying "but reason C is right!".

Maybe that's just too much to ask from some people.

To be clear, I'm not defending that the judge was ultimately right (reason A), as shown by the appeals court (reason C). But in saying his intent was NOT to 'replace western law with Sharia Law' (reason B) or other such nonsense, and to explain that his reason had to do with his ideas about 'intent' (reason A) as an element of the crime rather than 'following Sharia Law) (reason B), it doesn't mean I'm saying he was right (reason C being right rather than reason A).

But the people who are claiming this is the Muslim horde conquering our country (reason B) only seem to repeat that.

To really discuss the issue of why the judge picked the wrong reason (reason A) about intent here, I'd need more info about his opinion and the law he was enforcing. But that's a judge (reason A) versus appeals court (reason C) issue. It doesn't need to be answered a lot to say that the evidence is that he had a different reason (reason A) than the anti-Muslim hysteria say he had (reason B).

But simply pointing that out, people have to bring in that he was wrong (reason C) as a defense for the Muslim hysteria claims (reason B).

 

[Darwin333]

Intent varies as an element of the crime, depending on the law.

Let me try to say something that some people are missing.

If a judge does something for reason A, and people say it was for reason B, and the judge was wrong for reason C, I can point out the error of those who say it was reason B without defending that he was right about reason A. But so many people think that pointing out the claim he did it for reasons B is wrong, by saying "but reason C is right!".

Maybe that's just too much to ask from some people.

To be clear, I'm not defending that the judge was ultimately right (reason A), as shown by the appeals court (reason C). But in saying his intent was NOT to 'replace western law with Sharia Law' (reason B) or other such nonsense, and to explain that his reason had to do with his ideas about 'intent' (reason A) as an element of the crime rather than 'following Sharia Law) (reason B), it doesn't mean I'm saying he was right (reason C being right rather than reason A).

But the people who are claiming this is the Muslim horde conquering our country (reason B) only seem to repeat that.

To really discuss the issue of why the judge picked the wrong reason (reason A) about intent here, I'd need more info about his opinion and the law he was enforcing. But that's a judge (reason A) versus appeals court (reason C) issue. It doesn't need to be answered a lot to say that the evidence is that he had a different reason (reason A) than the anti-Muslim hysteria say he had (reason B).

But simply pointing that out, people have to bring in that he was wrong (reason C) as a defense for the Muslim hysteria claims (reason B).

Then we get beyond reasons A-C and enter into the realm of reality.

The reality is that his religion is irrelevant and so are his religious beliefs. The reality is that anyone who believes rape is "ok" is a criminal danger t society regardless of the reason they think its ok. Any judge who thinks that rape might be ok for reasons a-z is ten times the danger to society.

Furthermore, the reality is that we are (supposed to be) a nation of laws. Those laws are (supposed) to apply to everyone equally. Personal or religious belief is again irrelevant. It is flat out absurd that we are having this discussion about a crime as horrible as rape, a crime in which "intent" and reasons a-c should be completely irrelevant when it comes to our system of justice.

 

[Craig234]

Then we get beyond reasons A-C and enter into the realm of reality.

Right on cue, I expected someone would post something idiotic like that and you did not let me down.

The facts are what the judge was thinking, and what the appeals court said was correct. There is no 'beyond' those two things that is relevant here. You missed the point. Surprise.

 

[routan]

Would you agree that sharia has no place in a secular state, ie the U.S.?

hi. sorry i never got to answer this. i dont follow this question. its common sense that a secular laws and religious laws cannot coexist together, its one or the other, they are the opposite of the other? are you trying to ask a rhetorical question?

 

[sandorski]

hi. sorry i never got to answer this. i dont follow this question. its common sense that a secular laws and religious laws cannot coexist together, its one or the other, they are the opposite of the other? are you trying to ask a rhetorical question?

It's not really an either/or in this case, which is where the first Judge was going with. I don't know the details of the "Rape" as I haven't read much about this, but this whole case seems mired in Contractual obligations rather than the Law of the Land.

Where things seem to have gone wrong here is in the possible Husband/Wife obligations or Marriage Contract. Religion comes into play if that has certain requirements of Husband/Wife. Just as an example, according to the New Testament a Husband or Wife is not to deny their spouse Sex when they request it. To do so is to break the Marriage Contract, but clearly the Law of the Land is in conflict with this notion, rightly IMO. I think the Judge made a poor decision, but to say that Sharia is now instated is patently ridiculous. I think the Judge was merely trying to interpret the Contract between Husband/Wife here, but again to reiterate I don't know the details of what happened, but it seems to me that such interpretations of Contract should only be used if Divorce(aka legal ending of Contract) is the issue, not potential Criminal action.